You are absolutely correct. Clearcutting is quite necessary when
the "management goal" is to maximize profit and board feet of timber (in
the short-term anyway) or to foster the growth of a desired tree species.
It is the "management objectives" on public lands which cater to industry
rather than the health and ecological integrity of the forest that is really
what is in question here.

Commercial clearcutting (in which I include shelterwood and seed tree
cuts) does NOT mimic ANY natural disturbance. Nowhere in nature do elements
such as fire and windstorm knock down and REMOVE all trees from the forest
floor. 80% of elemental nutrients of a tree is in the bole of that
tree. To remove ALL trees, or the majority of trees (even if leaving
branches and stumps behind) greatly depletes soil nutrients, regeneration
success, AND habitat for many species. Yes there are animal species that
DO benefit from clearcuts. And if your "management objective" is
to provide more feeding habitat for deer..., well again, this is a questionable
objective given the overabundance of these beautiful but collectively destructive
creatures (from a biological diversity standpoint). But if you want
to protect and enhance populations of species that are threatened and endangered
(which should be a PRIMARY objective of public lands management), then
we must work on a regional scale to preserve very large tracts of land
that are hands-off to commercial loggging--creating large contiguous forests
that allows for "natural disturbance regimes" with perhaps some initial
"noncommercial" cutting for true restoration purposes based on sound science.
And where cut vegetation is not REMOVED from the forest ecosystem.

This is not to say that I am against logging and society's use wood
products. That would be silly. I DO recognize that we can do
a lot more to reduce demand for wood fiber through waste reduction and
alternative paper fiber/building materials. I also think that we,
as an activists community should come together to create a proactive vision
for MI that involves establishing large core wilderness reserves (Ottawa
National Forest as a core, for example) and linking together such areas
with wilderness corridors (using state/county parks and forests and private
conservancy lands). Again, a reserve with no commercial logging and
where natural disturbance regimes can be allowed to take place/evolution
to proceed with minimal human manipulation. (And of course, this in conjunction
with comprehensive waste/demand reduction and rural economic diversity
programs for a holistic approach to forest protection.)

.......Then we can bicker about what management tools are best for private
working forest management objectives..... ; )

Respectfully,
Karen Tuerk

Smethurst wrote:

Gross overgeneralizations
like, "Clearcuts are always bad", is not accepted by "everyone" one the
list. Clearcuts, done correctly, in appropriate places, to meet management
goals, can be a legitimate tool in forest management. Dave Smethurst